ShqNRNqCrkidUeWGDueTmnRE7c9TN74lP2Pezc8WV03pmkF3RmwMPYCdH3OwCYShqNRNqCrkidUeWGDueTmnRE7c9TN74lP2Pezc8WV03pmkF3RmwMPYCd

Sorry for a potentially stupid question. During WWII the German's positioned submarines off of the east coast. Why did they never attempt to attack US military or civilian ports/docks? Was the purpose to gather intelligence on ship movements instead?

I have been doing some reading on the end of WWII and it baffles me that there was not a general consensus of disapproval by the international community in regards to these attacks. Of course I understand this was a counterattack after Pearl Harbour, but that was an attack resulting in the death of 2,300 soldiers and less than 100 civilians. While that is abhorrent, it does not seem significant in the context of a world war. However, the way nuclear weapons utterly destroyed large areas of inhabited land, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and effected the long-term health and quality of life of countless others, it seems even objectively excessive. Through years of history lessons and my own attempt at research, why does the justifiability of this attack never seem to be a topic of discussion?

The Exodus could also be seen as building upon this to create a more epic narrative.

I'm sorry in advance it this isn't the right place to ask this. I am taking a course on WW2 and I was wondering why we refer to asian leaders like Mao and Tojo by their first names (or their full names) but usually refer to western leaders by their last names like Hitler or Staline?

I would prefer a modern book such as from 1875+.

I already have a book for the past when much of the Byzantine Empire was turkified? such as in the 1330's. That being said I would like to read more about that era as well.

Also curious about indigenous American systems.

I'm an Australian year 12 Modern History student and am finding it really hard to wrap my head around the Weimar Republic. After the Kaiser abdicated and a republic was established, Ebert was appointed Chancellor. In my understanding that position would have been abolished with the monarchy, as the Chancellor acted as a Prime Minister would. If you have a Republic with a President, why did they keep the Chancellor?

I am an actress, about to take on the role of a girl graduating high school in 1959.

Can anyone recommend any good memoirs or even well written historical fiction that gives insight to the lives of women at this time?

I've done research on the period overall, but first person narrative would be very helpful in developing character.

Obviously there were women fighting for their rights, women against the war, women afraid of change, and everything in between.

I'm interested in learning more about them all. Any reading suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Heck, if YOU were a woman living in this time, tell me about it!

Thanks y'all!

and why did people like Kossuth not try and change the name for nationalist reasons like we've seen in other more recent countries adn revolutionary movements?

Please include union, confederate, and total death toll.

Conquest of Egypt and Libya?

John Legend just made this claim at the Oscars. Is this true?

Edit: as /u/joelzwilliams stated. Under incarcerated control.

I read an interesting post on this subreddit that 80% of Nazi combat casualties were caused by fighting the Soviets. This lead me to wonder what % of Japanese casualties were the result of fighting the Chinese as opposed to fighting other allies?

(note: I posted this question 2 weeks ago and didn't get a reply so this is a second try :-/ )

Were blacksmiths very common in early colonial America? Where did they get ore? Around what time period did blacksmiths become as common in America as they were in Europe.